In Peyton v. New York City Bd. of Standards and Appeals, (2018 N.Y. 06870, 166 A.D.3d 120 (1st Dept 2018), Petitioners-community residents (“Petitioners”) commenced a proceeding to challenge the City of New York (“City”) Board of Standards and Appeals’s (“Board”) resolution upholding the City Department of Buildings’s (“DOB”) decision to grant a permit for the construction of a twenty-story nursing home (“Project”) on the Upper West Side.  The main issue is the City’s “open space” mandate (“Open Space Law”) and whether the Project provides enough open space to suffice the requirement.  The Court rulings and the Project’s viability hinged entirely upon how to calculate compliance with the Open Space Law.

At the outset, it is crucial to note the difference between a building-by-building calculation for open space and an open space calculation in the aggregate.  The former calculates the required open space with respect to each individual building within a zoning lot, whereas the latter considers the open space requirement for all buildings existing on an entire zoning lot together.  This distinction is at the heart of the dispute.

Procedurally, as relevant herein, the DOB made its open space calculation for the Project based upon a “building-by-building” methodology and decided to issue the construction permit.  One or more of the Petitioners appealed the DOB’s decision to the Board.  The Board resolved to uphold the issuance of the permit and the calculation methodology, which resolution the Petitioners challenged in this proceeding.  The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the petition and affirmed the Board’s resolution.  Petitioners appealed and the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed.

The Project site is within a “superblock” zoning lot known as “Park West Village” comprising 308,475 square feet, or 7 acres (“Zoning Lot”) (between 97th and 100th Streets and Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues; the complex extends to Central Park, but that portion is not at issue).  The complex on the Zoning Lot was built in the 1950s and 1960s as part of a federally subsidized middle-income urban renewal project and includes residential buildings, a school, a church, a public library, a health center and commercial buildings.  There are four residential buildings: three original sixteen-story buildings and a more recently constructed twenty-nine-story mixed commercial and residential building (“Fourth Building”).

A forty-year deed restriction had prohibited construction on the Zoning Lot through 2006 and the present owner (“Owner”) acquired the land shortly before the prohibition expired.  Approving and constructing the Fourth Building was the center of controversy between Petitioners, Owner, the City and others, which controversy also revolved around the City’s open space requirements.

Since its inception in 1961, and despite amendments in 1977, the Open Space Law had no particular design or mode to address zoning lots improved with multiple buildings.  With respect to the Fourth Building, there was a disagreement over whether its rooftop open space could count towards the open space requirement for the entire Zoning Lot.  The Fourth Building’s rooftop space included a 42,500 square feet garden, with a mosaic tile saltwater pool, sundeck and lawn.  However, the rooftop garden provided access only to residents of the Fourth Building and did not allow access to occupants of other buildings within the Zoning Lot.  If the Fourth Building’s rooftop garden was included in the open space calculation, then the project met the requirements; if not, then the project would fail.

The DOB performed a building-by-building analysis for the Zoning Lot, included the rooftop garden in its calculation and issued a building permit in 2007.  Residents of Park West Village and others challenged the DOB’s approval based upon the fact that the Fourth Building’s rooftop garden did not provide access to all residents of the Zoning Lot and, thus, could not be included in the open space calculation.

In 2009, the Board resolved to affirm the DOB’s decision (“2009 Resolution”), wherein the Board noted that the Open Space Law’s language requires open space with respect to a “building,” not the zoning lot as a whole; therefore, open space among multiple buildings need not be common, centralized space shared by all occupants of the zoning lot, and the building-by-building methodology for calculating open space suffices.  The 2009 Resolution utilized the building-by-building methodology for the first time and stated: “as each of the buildings is allocated the amount of space that is in excess of that which would be required…if they were located on separate zoning lots, it cannot be seen how those residents would be deprived of an equitable share of open space by the proposed building.”  The Board’s resolution was challenged, but the challenge was settled out of court and the Fourth Building was completed.

Two years later, in February 2011, the City amended the Open Space Law (“2011 Amendments”).  The definition of “open space” has always been: “that part of a zoning lot, including courts or yards, which is open and unobstructed from its lowest level to the sky and is accessible to and usable by all persons occupying a dwelling unit or a rooming unit on the zoning lot.”  The 2011 Amendments modified several other provisions of the Open Space Law (e.g. “open space ratio,” “minimum open space,” etc.) by substituting the words “zoning lot” and “all zoning lots” for the words “building” and “any buildings,” focusing the law and its analysis upon the actual zoning lots – as opposed to individual buildings.

After the City enacted the 2011 Amendments, the Owner sought to utilize a former parking lot within the Zoning Lot, which Park West Village residents previously used.  The Owner entered into an exchange agreement with the Project’s developer (“Developer”) to swap the parking lot for another parcel of land located north of the Zoning Lot and owned by the Developer (“New Parcel”).  The New Parcel was large enough for the Owner to construct another luxury apartment building.  The Owner agreed to pay the Developer $35,000,000 and the Developer promised to complete the project on the former parking lot.  However, this exchange was contingent upon, among other things, the Developer obtaining a permit from the DOB for construction of the Project.

In March 2011, the Developer made its applications to the DOB, which expressly noted that the open space within the Project would be accessible to all persons occupying a dwelling unit on the Zoning Lot.  Developer’s open space calculations for the Project included all of the open space on the zoning lot, including the Fourth Building’s rooftop garden.  Petitioners objected and argued that, based upon the 2011 Amendments to the Open Space Law, the Fourth Building’s rooftop garden no longer counted towards the open space calculation for the Zoning Lot (due to restricted access) and that the building-by-building methodology was invalid.

The DOB disagreed and granted a building permit for the Project.  Petitioners appealed to the Board and the Board resolved to affirm (“2011 Resolution”), relying upon the 2009 Resolution: “in the case of a multi-building zoning lot, the open space definition could be read to allow some open space to be reserved for the residents of a single building as long as the residents of each building on the zoning lot have access to at least the amount of space that would be required…if each building were on separate zoning lots.”  The Board also noted that the 2011 Amendments did not dictate a change in the DOB’s or Board’s building-by-building methodology or open space analysis.

Petitioners challenged the Board’s 2011 Resolution by commencing this proceeding and argued that, even though the Fourth Building’s rooftop garden was arguably within the meaning of open space when it was constructed in 2009, it presently was not open space by virtue of the 2011 Amendments.  These changes to the Open Space Law eliminated any ambiguity as to how to calculate open space and the Fourth Building’s rooftop garden cannot be included because the area is not available to all occupants of the Zoning Lot.

It was undisputed that the Project sufficed the open space requirement with the inclusion of the Fourth Building’s rooftop garden.  It was also undisputed that the Project failed to provide adequate open space without the rooftop garden.  The Board’s main argument was that the City’s Open Space Law is ambiguous and, therefore, the DOB and the Board have discretion to construe it.  In particular, the Board argued that the definition of open space (with accessibility and usability for all residents within a zoning lot) is irreconcilable with the definition of “zoning lot,” which contemplated multiple buildings on a single lot.  Therefore, the Open Space Law was ambiguous and the DOB and the Board were free to interpret and reconcile this ambiguity, i.e. by utilizing the building-by-building methodology.  The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition and dismissed the proceeding. Petitioners appealed and the Appellate Division reversed and annulled the 2011 Resolution.

On appeal, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Board and adopted the Petitioners’ argument that the 2011 Amendments removed the contextual basis upon which the Board relied.  Judicial deference should be given to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with implementing, unless the interpretation is unreasonable or irrational.  However, where the question is one of pure statutory interpretation, an agency’s interpretation is accorded much less weight and Courts are free to ascertain the proper interpretation from the statutory language and legislative intent.  Here, resolving the dispute concerning the 2011 Amendments does not implicate the expertise of the DOB or the Board as the implementing administrative agencies; instead, the resolution is one of pure statutory analysis and does not require deference to the agencies.

The Appellate Division held that the definition of “open space” is clear and unambiguous, requiring open space to be accessible to all residents of any residential building on the zoning lot – not only the building containing the open space in question.  The Court noted this clarity is further bolstered by the 2011 Amendments, which eliminated all references to “building” and replaced the term with “zoning lot” in the relevant Open Space Law provisions.  Therefore, any space, including a rooftop, that is to be considered “open space” for purpose of satisfying the requirement must be accessible and usable by all residents of the zoning lot.  In addition, the Court expressly invalidated the building-by-building methodology: “Lest there be any doubt, we find that the 2011 [A]mendments now preclude use of [this] methodology, which has been an exception to this clear statutory import.”

The Court also noted that absence of legislative history did not evidence an intent to accept the building-by-building methodology.  Rather, the 2011 Amendments replacement of the word “building” was an unmistakable rejection of the use of this formula.  Notably, one of the four Judges dissented, which may lead the case to the Court of Appeals.

In 1999, the Greenport Group, LLP (“Greenport Group”) acquired a 31 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Chapel Lane and the north side of the Main Road in Greenport in the Town of Southold. The southerly portion of the property was zoned “Limited Business” and the northerly portion was zoned “Hamlet Density”. When purchased, there were four buildings on the property, each containing two residential units that were part of a larger project to build multi-residence senior citizen housing, which had been approved for an additional 140 units. The Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals granted a conditional site plan and special exception approval for the construction of the multiple residence complex in or about 1976, with certificates of occupancy being issued for the four buildings on the property in 1984. The additional units were never built and no further construction took place on site.

On September 12, 2000, the Town Board of the Town of Southold adopted a local law, Local Law 20 of 2000, changing the zoning of the property to Residential Low Density, R-80. The R-80 designation increased the minimum lot size permitted on the property from 10,000 square feet to 80,000 square feet. The local law was filed with the Secretary of State on October 2, 2000. Thereafter, the Greenport Group filed a hybrid Article 78 proceeding and Declaratory Judgment action in Supreme Court on February 2, 2001, entitled Greenport Group, LLP and Adrienne Solof v. The Town Board of the Town of Southold, Index No. 01-2730, seeking a judgment declaring that the local law up-zoning the property was null and void. Greenport Group alleged that the Town Board’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, that the re-zoning subjected their property to disparate treatment and constituted reverse spot zoning, that they had vested rights in the prior zoning designations, that the rezoning was inconsistent with the goals of the Town Comprehensive Plan, and the rezoning constituted a regulatory taking of the property without just compensation. In response, the Town Board moved for summary judgment.

The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, by decision dated June 17, 2015, granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the Greenport Group’s claims that (i) the Town failed to comply with the notice requirements rendering the local law adoption invalid since plaintiff actually participated in the local law hearing, (ii) the Town’s adoption of the local law changing the zoning constituted impermissible spot zoning where Greenport Group failed to allege or offer evidence that the change was “for the benefit of the owner to the detriment of other owners”, (iii) that Greenport Group had vested property rights in the prior zoning of the property when no construction was performed on site in connection with the development prior to the zone change, and (iv) the re-zoning constitutes a taking without just compensation since Greenport Group citing an 80% diminution of the property’s value was deemed insufficient and failed to prove that the property was incapable of producing a reasonable return or that the economic value of the property was destroyed by the zone change.

The Supreme Court denied the Town’s motion for summary judgment relative to the second and fifth causes of action asserted by Greenport Group. The second and fifth causes of action asserted by the Greenport Group alleged that the Town Board’s adoption was arbitrary and capricious representing an unconstitutional abuse of the Town Board’s zoning authority, and that the re-zoning was unjustified and failed to achieve the purported goals of the local law and land use plans. Here, the Court found that Greenport Group had raised triable issues of fact as to whether the Town Board’s stated intent of the re-zoning was the actual purpose for re-zoning Greenport Group’s property. The Supreme Court stated, “[p]arenthetically, since the re-zoning was enacted approximately 14 years ago, the witnesses’ recollection as to the zoning classification was legitimately less than ideal. Although the Town Board’s decision appears to be supported by the CR48 Land Use Study… and tremendous deference is given to the local municipality’s decision-making process and its authority, the Court will not simply rubberstamp a local municipality’s assertion that it was following the advice of its own consultant. Instead, the Court must examine the record, including the adopted legislation, to determine whether the legislation was reasonable and enacted in accordance with the municipality’s land use plan. Here, notwithstanding the documentary evidence supporting the Town Board’s claim, plaintiffs raise questions of fact concerning similarly situated properties included within the CCG studies but treated differently by the Town Board.” Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the Town’s motion for summary judgment with respect to these two causes of action.

The parties cross-appealed the matter and the Appellate Division, Second Department, in its decision entitled Greenport Group, LLC et al., v. Town Board of the Town of Southold, dated December 5, 2018, remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for “severance” of the causes of action asserted by Greenport Group and the entry of judgment declaring the Local Law that changed the zoning classification was valid. The Appellate Division reviewed and affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of each of Greenport Groups causes of action. However, the Court found that the Supreme Court should have granted the Town Board’s motion for summary judgement with respect to the second and fifth causes asserting that the rezoning of the property was arbitrary and inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The Appellate Division cited the “heavy burden of countering the strong presumption of validity accorded the enactment [of local laws]” and further stated that “if the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes is even ‘fairly debatable,’ the classification must be sustained upon judicial review (citing, Matter of Town of Bedford v. Village of Mount Kisco, 33 NY2d at 186).” The Appellate Division also found that Greenport Group failed to raise a triable issue of fact, contrary to the Supreme Court’s findings, regarding the purpose and intent of the re-zoning stating, “[w]hile the courts must satisfy themselves that the rezoning meets the statutory requirement that zoning be in accordance with the comprehensive plan of the community, this does not entail examining the motives of local officials (Udell v. Haas, 21 NY2d 463, 471).” Ultimately, the Appellate Division found that the local law changing the zoning classification of the Greenport Group’s property was valid and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for appropriate judgment.

 

 

In a decision dated October 30, 2018, Supreme Court Judge Joseph Pastoressa remanded a decision made by the Southampton Village Architectural and Historic Board (BARHP) for further consideration. Manger et al. v. Board of Architectural Review and Historic Review of the Village of Southampton.

 The property owner in Manger applied to the BARHP for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a single family dwelling and accessory structures on two separate lots in the Village of Southampton. The lots are in a Historic District which requires a Certificate of Appropriateness as a condition precedent to issuing a building permit.

During the public hearing process that resulted in an approval of the application, the Board stated that it could not consider the size of the house in its review of the proposed construction. The Board took this position because the house as proposed fully complied with the Zoning Code of the Village of Southampton. That position was supported by Board precedent and a prior decision in Ferrara v. Board of Architectural Review.

Immediate neighbors of the property brought the Article 78 proceeding and argued that scale and size were different measurements and the Board could consider the scale of houses and any corresponding impact on the neighboring properties. Alternatively, the property owner and Village argued that if a house complied with Zoning then the BARHP was powerless to require a reduction in size. Ultimately, Judge Pastoressa rejected that argument and sent the matter back to the Board for re-consideration.

This case highlights the tension between the Zoning Code and the Historic and Landmark Preservation Code. Historically, zoning was enacted to protect light and air between properties. This protection is accomplished through setbacks and the restrictions on the size of a structure. One of the stated considerations of the Historic and Landmark Preservation Law is the impact of new construction on the character of nearby properties.

As held by Judge Pastoressa, the BARHP now may consider the impact of new construction on surrounding properties. But, that consideration still must include an analysis of the new construction under Zoning Code provisions.

Since the Declaration of Purposes of the Zoning Code (§116-1) and the Legislative Findings and Intent (§65-1) in the Historic and Landmark Preservation Law share many common core goals, compliance with the Zoning Code is certainly compelling if not overwhelming evidence that the mass and scale of new construction is appropriate.  So, while the option to reduce the size of a structure is seemingly available to the BAHRP, it must show that the Zoning Code somehow failed to achieve one of its basic goals. There must be significant evidence showing an impact not addressed by the Zoning Code for the BARHP to reduce the size of a structure under that which is allowed by Zoning.

Ultimately, this leaves a potential purchaser of real property in a bind. Any advice by counsel to a purchaser must be given with a caveat that the BAHRP has final say and compliance with the Zoning Code does not guarantee approval.

 

Due to the proliferation of advanced mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablets, wireless service providers anticipate a significant increase in data traffic over their networks in the next few years.  As a result, mobile operators have been compelled to find new ways to increase their network capacity, provide better coverage and reduce network congestion. One solution has been to create a new small cell network consisting of a series of small low-powered antennas – sometimes called nodes – that are typically attached to existing utility poles or streetlights located in the public right of way. In many municipalities, however, service providers and their contractors are facing strong opposition from elected officials and residents who have expressed concerns about the impacts from this new equipment.

One of the more recent battles is currently taking place in the Westchester County community of Rye, where an application by Crown Castle NG East LLC (“Crown Castle”) has already been the subject of two lawsuits, one which resulted in a ruling that delays associated with environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) do not violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TCA”).

The City of Rye (“City”) entered into a right of way use agreement (“RUA”) with NextG Networks of NY, Inc. (“NextG”) on February 17, 2011. Pursuant to the RUA, NextG was authorized to install and operate a form of small cell technology, known as distributed antennae systems (“DAS”), to expand existing wireless telephone services and coverage by installing its equipment within the public right of way (“ROW”), mostly on pre-existing utility poles. Between 2011 and 2015, NextG installed nine nodes within the public ROW on existing utility poles.

The RUA precluded NextG from assigning or transferring its rights under the agreement, except in limited circumstances and only with prior written notice of its intent to make such a transfer. Thereafter, on April 10, 2012, NextG became a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Crown Castle International Corp., but NextG did not notify the City of its transfer of rights under the RUA until May 25, 2012.

In December of 2015, in some unspecified manner, Crown Castle advised the City of its intent to install equipment cabinets within the public ROW that are dimensionally larger than the pre-existing cabinets. The request was memorialized in a letter from Crown Castle to the City Council on April 8, 2016. In a subsequent letter, dated June 24, 2016, Crown Castle requested that the City Council adopt a resolution confirming that its application to install larger equipment cabinets was a Type II action under SEQRA or, alternatively, adopt a SEQRA “negative declaration” at its next public meeting.

Public hearings were held on Crown Castle’s application in July, August, and October of 2016 and in April of 2017. At the October 5, 2016 public hearing, the City Council declared its intention to as serve as lead agency for purposes of reviewing Crown Castle’s application under SEQRA. During the April 22, 2017 public hearing, the City Council issued a “positive declaration” for the proposed project under SEQRA. It also indicated that, in the event that the application is determined to be exempt from SEQRA, the application should be denied.

A positive declaration is a determination that an action may result in one or more significant environmental impacts and requires a comprehensive environmental review of the action, including the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement (“EIS”), before an agency decision may be made regarding the action. The SEQRA regulations contain mandatory minimum and maximum time periods associated with the processing of EISs that necessarily postpones a lead agency’s final decision until after the SEQRA process has been completed. A negative declaration is a determination by the lead agency that an action will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact and consequently no EIS will be prepared.

Following the City Council’s adoption of a positive declaration, Crown Castle commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Crown Castle NG East LLC v. The City of Rye, et al., 17 CV 3535 (E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2017), alleging that the City and City Council violated the RUA and the TCA.  Crown Castle also alleged claims under Article 78 of the CPLR and the New York State Transportation Corporations Law (“TCL”). The City moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that Crown Castle failed to state a TCA claim.

Section 253(a) of the TCA provides that “no State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.” Section 253(c) further provides that “nothing in this section affects the authority of a . . . local government to manage the public rights-of-way . . . on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis.” Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) states that “any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence in a written record.”

With respect Crown Castle’s claim that the City’s 18-month delay in providing a decision on its application amounted to a prohibition of telecommunications services under TCA § 253(a), the Court disagreed and held that the City’s review process, including the associated SEQRA review, was not a “legal requirement” prohibited under TCA § 253(a). It also noted that the TCA does not render a SEQRA review or any delays associated with that review a violation of federal law.

In support of its holding, the Court cited the District Court’s decision in New York SMSA Ltd. P’Ship v. Town of Riverhead Town Board, 118 F.Supp.2d 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d, 45 Fed App’x. 24 (2d Cir. 2002), where the court noted that “a positive SEQRA declaration necessarily delays a final decision” and that “this court will not hold that a local government’s invocation of that statute is precluded because of the existence of the TCA.” The Court also held that municipal review alone cannot be a proscribed barrier to entry under Section 253(a) because the TCA § 332 requirement for “substantial evidence” necessitates a thorough review in order to justify the denial of a request to place, construct, or modify wireless facilities.

The Court also rejected Crown’s other TCA claims. It found that TCA § 253(c) does not create a stand-alone violation of the TCA because it is a safe harbor for municipalities or a “savings clause” that carves out liability rather than imposes it. The Court also found that because the City’s “denial” was hypothetical, it was neither a “regulation” nor a “decision” for purposes of stating a TCA § 332(c)(7)(B) claim. Moreover, the Court noted that the purported “denial” was not a final decision for Section 332 because a SEQRA positive declaration is not a final agency decision that is reviewable under New York law. Accordingly, the City’s motion to dismiss was granted.

The dispute continued in the Westchester County Supreme Court in Crown Castle NG East LLC v. The City of Rye, et al., 50310/18 (Sup. Ct., Westchester Co., August 20, 2018), wherein Crown Castle sought to have its state law claims adjudicated. However, the Court never addressed the merits of the state law claims because it concluded that Crown Castle was not a proper assignee or transferee under the RUA and, therefore, did not have standing to maintain the proceeding.

While these two decisions represent significant victories for the City of Rye and its residents, both decisions were made on procedural grounds, and neither addressed the merits of Crown Castle’s federal and state law claims. Communities throughout New York and elsewhere that have been presented with applications for the installation of small cell nodes will undoubtedly be watching closely to see how Crown Castle’s battle with the City of Rye ultimately plays out.

If you have any questions concerning the subject matter of this post, please contact Anthony at aguardino@farrellfritz.com.

 

Local zoning ordinances throughout New York State incorporate the flexible “accessory use” component so as not to unnecessarily restrict one’s use of property.  Accessory uses are incidental and customary to the principal use of property. Determining whether a use is actually “accessory,” however, is often debated – especially where the use is not specifically enumerated as such or where the ordinance does not define the use.

Recently, in Brophy v. Town of Olive Zoning Board of Appeals, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 07388 (3d Dept), the accessory use debate engaged the Appellate Division, Third Department.  Ashokan Dreams, a bed-and-breakfast on 28-acres in the Town of Olive (“Town“), began operating in 1998.  Ashokan Dreams was zoned “residential-rural-3A,” which permitted, among other uses, “tourist homes,” “boardinghouses” and “commercial recreation.”

The proprietors of the bed-and-breakfast first sought and obtained site plan approval, without conditions, from the Town Planning Board (“Planning Board“) for a single guest bedroom bread-and-breakfast operation in 1998.  Almost two-decades later, and without further approvals, Ashokan Dreams had expanded to three guest rooms and offered weddings – upwards of 12 each year – with limited lodging.  In 2015, the Town Zoning Enforcement Officer (“ZEO“) advised Ashokan Dreams in writing that site plan review was required because the weddings had grown to affect the health, safety and welfare of the neighbors and that site plan review would be a proper remedy via the imposition of certain limitations.

Ashokan Dreams submitted a site plan application to the Planning Board, which referred the matter to the ZEO and the Town Zoning Board (“ZBA“).  After a public hearing, the ZBA determined that the weddings were a “permitted special use to a bed-and-breakfast” requiring site plan review and remitted the matter back to the Planning Board.  Notably, the ZBA also reasoned that periodic seasonal events, including weddings, could be an “accessory use” at the site.  Neighboring property owners and a neighborhood association (collectively “Neighbors“) commenced an Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the ZBA’s determination.  The Supreme Court, Ulster County, partially granted and partially dismissed the Neighbor’s petition, holding: the ZBA correctly determined weddings were an accessory use, but erred by legislating a “new use subject to a special permit requirement.”  The Neighbors appealed challenging, inter alia, the accessory use finding and the Appellate Division affirmed.

The Third Department noted that, generally, a zoning board’s interpretation of local zoning ordinance is afforded deference and will only be disturbed if it is unreasonable or irrational.   This deferential standard was applicable “because [determining] whether a proposed accessory use is incidental and customarily found in connection with the principal use of property is, to a great extent, fact-based.  Resolution of the accessory use question depends upon an analysis of the nature and character of the principal use of the land in question in relation to the accessory use, taking into consideration the over-all character of the particular area in question.”[1]

In its analysis of whether the wedding venue accessory use was customary and incidental to the bed-and-breakfast, the Court considered the character of the use and the area in question.  The district permitted “tourist homes,” “boardinghouses” and “commercial recreation.”  Tourist homes are dwellings which offer up to four rooms for transient guests.  Boardinghouses are dwellings occupied by one family and three or more lodgers.  Each of these uses permit the provision of services of a temporary residence.  Commercial recreation is defined as making use of mountain land, including resort hotels, seasonal commercial camps resort ranches, resort lodges and bungalow colonies.  Notably, another bed-and-breakfast in the same district offered similar weddings services.  The Court found held that the ZBA’s determination was not irrational or unreasonable and its reliance, in part, on the fact that another bed-and-breakfast within the same district also offered wedding services was not in error.

[1] The Town ordinance defined “accessory use” as one that is customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the premises. And, for all residential districts, the Town ordinance authorized any other accessory buildings or use considered by the ZBA to be customarily incidental to any related principal use therein.

On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted its Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (“Declaratory Ruling and Order”) enacting significant regulatory changes that will impact local control over the deployment of wireless infrastructure. Aimed at streamlining the nationwide deployment of 5G wireless—the next generation of wireless technology—the Declaratory Ruling and Order contains several features that will have a direct impact on the validity of certain local code provisions and on the processes used by local boards when hearing and deciding small cell wireless applications. The following are some of the key provisions of the Declaratory Ruling and Order:

Fees.  Small cell wireless systems, including Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), are a form of wireless equipment commonly deployed on utility and light poles along streets and other public right-of-ways. These are the boxes (cabinets), cylinders and antennae that can often be seen at or near the top of host poles.

In order to access the right-of-way to install, operate and maintain small cell systems, service providers and wireless infrastructure developers typically offer municipalities annualized compensation pursuant to certain terms and conditions laid out in a written right-of-way use agreement. Some providers have offered a flat annual fee per location, while others have offered a set percentage of annual profits based on a specified formula. Some have offered both. In some respects, these right-of-way use agreements have operated as rental arrangements.

Under the Declaratory Ruling and Order, the fees municipalities charge for access to their right-of-ways must bear a direct relationship to the “actual and reasonable cost” to the municipality in: (a) maintaining the right-of-way; (b) maintaining the host structure(s) in the right-of-way; or (c) processing an application or permit seeking to deploy in the right-of-way. (¶72).* Fee arrangements which seek to simply maximize a municipality’s profit without any correlation to a demonstrable cost could be deemed illegal barriers to access. (¶73).  The Declaratory Ruling and Order goes one step further on this subject by providing a set of fees and rates the FCC views as presumptively consistent with the Federal Telecommunications Act. (¶79).

Aesthetics.  The proliferation of small cell systems in public right-of-ways has resulted in frequent complaints from local officials and residents about negative impacts on community character and aesthetics. In response, many municipalities have enacted local zoning code provisions that include aesthetic standards for small cell installations. Examples of such standards include the requirement that small cell installations be placed within “stealth” poles or camouflaged, and that equipment be installed in underground vaults whenever possible (a/k/a undergrounding).

The Declaratory Ruling and Order states that, going forward, aesthetic standards affecting small cell deployments are permissible only if they are: (1) reasonable; (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments; and (3) objective and published in advance. (¶86). The Declaratory Ruling and Order expounds on its meaning of “reasonable” as “technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments”. (¶87). Its use of “objective” describes standards that are “clearly-defined and ascertainable” and “applied in a principled manner”. (¶88). What is meant by the second criterion—that aesthetic requirements be “no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments”—is somewhat unclear, particularly so if one attempts to compare the characteristics of small cell wireless installations to those of traditional “utilities”, such as water, sewer, electric, and even cable.

What is clear from this newly minted test is that locally-enacted aesthetic standards will be facing heightened legal scrutiny, and standards that would render a deployment cost-prohibitive or ineffective are most likely to be viewed as an effective prohibition on service. The Declaratory Ruling and Order calls out, specifically, overly specific design and camouflaging requirements, excessive spacing requirements, and mandatory undergrounding requirements as potentially impermissible aesthetic standards. (¶¶84, 90-91).

Shot Clocks.  The Declaratory Ruling and Order takes two notable actions with respect to the shot clocks that apply to local decisions on telecommunications projects. First, it purports to codify the existing 90-day and 150-day shot clocks established in 2009 for non-small cell telecommunications projects. Second, it establishes two new shot clocks which apply to local decisions on small cell wireless applications. Under the new shot clocks, a government agency considering a small cell wireless application has 60 days to take action on a complete application for an installation on an existing structure and 90 days to take action on a complete application for an installation on a new structure. (¶105). A batched application (i.e. a single application covering multiple sites on both existing and new structures) is subject to the longer 90-day shot clock. (¶114).

Remedies for Providers.  The Declaratory Ruling and Order provides teeth for the new shot clocks by articulating a new theory for legal recourse in the event a government agency fails to act on a small cell wireless application in a timely manner. Under existing FCC regulations, a wireless applicant may seek legal remedy in court if the government agency considering its application fails to act within the time prescribed under the shot clocks. Under the Declaratory Ruling and Order, such a failure is not only a “failure to act” but is also presumptively an “unlawful prohibition on service” by the government agency.  (¶¶116-120). The addition of this presumption places a new burden on the defending agency to demonstrate that its failure to act within the time allowed under the applicable shot clock was reasonable and that it did not materially limit or inhibit the applicant from introducing or improving service.

The full Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order contains in depth explanations and the reasoning behind each of the regulatory changes briefly addressed above. It further contains clarifications on when shot clocks start, pause, and restart, and when certain applications qualify as “collocations” for purposes of determining which shot clock applies to a given application.

A summary of the Declaratory Ruling and Order was published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2018. The new rules will therefore take effect on January 14, 2019 (90 days after publication).

The full Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order can be viewed on the FCC website at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/cellular-reform-third-report-and-order. The summary published in the Federal Register can be viewed on the Federal Register’s website at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/15/2018-22234/accelerating-wireless-and-wireline-broadband-deployment-by-removing-barriers-to-infrastructure.

If you have any questions concerning the subject of this post, please feel free to contact Philip at pbutler@farrellfritz.com.

*The ¶ symbol followed by a number refers to the paragraph with the same number in the full Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order.

In Voutsinas v. Schenone, 2018 NY Slip Op 07439 (2d Dept, November 17, 2018), the Appellate Division, Second Department, reminded land use practitioners of not only the importance of appealing decisions rendered by Town and Village Boards, including Trustees, Zoning and Planning Boards, even if not all of the findings of facts in the decision are adverse to the applicant, but also, the consequences that can be brought upon a second application made to the same board or body for similar relief.

In Schenone, the landowner and tenant (collectively “Petitioners”) made an application to the Village of Rockville Centre Zoning Board of Appeals (“Zoning Board”) seeking an off-street parking space variance in connection with a proposed two-story restaurant to be constructed in the Village.  On March 12, 2014, the Zoning Board denied the application as presented.  However, the Zoning Board agreed to grant an off-street parking space variance to construct a one-story restaurant finding that the Village could accommodate a parking variance in connection with the proposed square footage of a one-story restaurant.   Petitioners did not appeal the March 12, 2014 Zoning Board decision.

Instead, Petitioners made a second application to the Zoning Board requesting to construct a two-story restaurant with valet service providing off-street parking at two nearby properties.  In denying the second application, by decision dated November 21, 2014, the Zoning Board held that the two nearby properties were subject to recorded covenants and restrictions that barred the properties from providing off-street parking.  Consequently, the Zoning Board denied the remaining request for a two-story restaurant relying on its March 12, 2014 decision stating that “absent the valet parking proposal, this second application was ‘not materially different’ from the petitioners/plaintiffs first application for a parking variance, and that it was bound by its March 12, 2014 determination finding that  the “addition of a second floor created an undue parking burden in an already congested area of Rockville Centre.”

Petitioners appealed the November 21, 2014 Zoning Board decision. The Supreme Court upheld the Zoning Board decision and dismissed the petition.  On appeal, the Second Department upheld the Supreme Court decision stating that ‘”[t]he principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies, such as zoning boards, and preclude the relitigation of issues previously litigated on the merits.”   Hence, when the Zoning Board issued its March 12, 2014 determination that the Village could not accommodate the congestion resulting from a two-story restaurant at the site; this finding of fact, without an appeal, became binding in the context of this application.

On appeal, Petitioners argued that because they submitted revised building plans, the second application is different from the first application.   The Second Department rejected this contention stating that “the revisions to the building plans submitted in support of their second application for a parking variance did not change the parking considerations attendant to each application.”    In other words, the second application requested the same two-story restaurant and when the alternative parking solution was found to be untenable, the Zoning Board was essentially left with the same initial request made for a two-story restaurant and denied in the first March 12, 2014 Zoning Board decision.

The take away here is that findings of fact made by a Board of body become the equivalent of “law of the case.”  As such, if there is any reason to believe that an amended application for similar relief will be sought, an appeal should be taken from the first decision, even if not all parts of the first decision are adverse to your application.  Although the appeal may never need to be perfected, simply taking the appeal preserves a party’s rights.

 

 

 

 

 

The Appellate Division, Second Department, issued a decision on October 10, 2018, which rejected a town’s attempt to saddle an applicant with over $17,000 in consulting fees supposedly incurred by the town in reviewing special use permit and area variance applications for an antenna tower to be used by an amateur radio (a/k/a ham radio) hobbyist. The installation of the tower was expected to cost less than $1,000.

In Matter of Landstein v. Town of LaGrange, Myles Landstein, the owner of residential property located in the Town of LaGrange (“Town”) in Dutchess County, sought the special use permit and area variance to install a 100-foot antenna tower on his property for his personal use in connection with his ham radio station. The Town Code limits towers to 35 feet in height.

Mr. Landstein had already obtained a license for his ham radio station from the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). After receiving the FCC license, Mr. Landstein applied to the Town and paid the $250 filing fee. Although the applications clearly indicated that all costs incurred by the Town for the review of the applications were the sole responsibility of the applicant, Mr. Landstein added a comment to the application requesting that he be advised in advance of the review cost amount.

The applicant indicated that the 100-foot tower, which would be 18-inches by 18-inches in dimension, was needed to operate the ham radio station effectively and would be barely visible above the tree line. Town residents objected, contending the tower would be an eyesore and interfere with cellular and internet service.

The applications were discussed at 14 separate public meetings over the course of 2 years. The applicant even agreed to decrease the height of the tower to 70 feet. However, he would not agree to pay the ever-increasing legal fees that the Town sought to recover from him, which at one point exceeded $17,000. Mr. Landstein’s attorney wrote to the Town complaining that the fees were excessive in light of tower’s modest installation cost and violated an FCC regulation. Thereafter, the Town Board passed a resolution indicating that it would review and audit its consultant costs to determine if they were “reasonable and necessary.”

The audit revealed that the town attorney’s charges were not solely attributed to the specific area variance application before the Town Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) but were more generic. They included charges for: (1) attendance at the ZBA hearings, (2) travel time, (3) telephone calls with ZBA members, (4) internal conferences at the town attorney’s law firm, (5) drafting the ZBA agendas, (6) reviewing the applicant’s files, and (7) legal research. Upon completion of the audit, the Town Board passed a resolution reducing the legal fees from more than $17,000 to $5,874. The resolution also required the applicant to maintain a $1,000 minimum balance in an escrow fund for future costs incurred with the applications, which would need to be replenished as the balance fell below that amount. The resolution indicated that the applications would not be further reviewed absent the payment of the fees and the establishment of the escrow fund.

The applicant sued. The trial court denied the Article 78 proceeding, but the applicant prevailed at the Appellant Division. The appellate court found that the Town’s fee provision exceeded state statutory authority. The Appellate Division noted that such fees needed to be “reasonable and necessary.” The Court found that the definition of “reasonable” in the Town Code was appropriate as it required a reasonable relationship to customary charges of similar consultants in the region in connection with similar land use applications. The Town Code definition of “necessary,” however, was rejected by the Appellate Division as it was way too broad, and was out of step with established precedent. The Town Code defined necessary consulting fees as those required “to assist in the protection or promotion of the health, safety or welfare of the Town or its residents; to assist in the protection of public or private property or the environment from potential damage…to assure or assist in compliance with laws, regulations, standards or codes which govern land use and development; to assure or assist in the orderly development and sound planning of a land use or development;…or to promote such other interests that the Town may specify as relevant.” The Appellate Division found the “to assist” language particularly troubling. The Court was equally troubled by the actions of the Town, first insisting that it be paid in excess of $17,000 in legal consulting fees, and its later reduction to $5,874, which was achieved by the Town merely striking entries from the invoices, without regard to their content or connection to the applications. The Appellate Division noted that the Town imposed liability without making any attempt to determine if similar charges were imposed by other municipalities for similar applications.

The Appellate Division also took aim at the escrow fund with its minimum $1,000 balance. The Court found this perpetual replenishment fund to be an impermissible effort to avoid having the Town’s taxpayers shoulder their share of the cost of governmental functioning.

Municipalities would be wise to examine their own codes to make sure that they seek reimbursement of costs that are reasonable and necessary in light of the specific project at issue, and not use that provision to dissuade or discourage land use applicants or as a means of underwriting the cost of government.

New York State Town Law § 277(9) authorizes a town Planning Board to require a developer to provide a performance bond or other security covering the cost of installation of subdivision infrastructure and improvements in case the developer fails to finish the required work. Specifically, Town Law §277(9) states: “[a]s an alternative to the installation of infrastructure and improvements, as above . . . prior to planning board approval, a performance bond or other security sufficient to cover the full cost of the same, as estimated by the planning board or a town department designated by the planning board to make such estimate . . . shall be furnished to the town by the owner.”

On October 24, 2018, the Appellate Division, Second Department explored the extent of this enabling legislation in the case of Joy Builders Inc. v. Town of Clarkson.  In Joy Builders v. Town of Clarkson, Joy Builders was developing two subdivisions approved by the Planning Board; a 22 lot subdivision called Highland Vista Estates and a 55 lot subdivision called Little Tor Subdivision.  Both subdivisions were approved by the Planning Board with the condition that Joy Builders would build the infrastructure required for each one including roads, curbs, sidewalks, street signs, light poles and monuments. Joy Builders was required to post performance bonds for each subdivision pursuant to New York State Town Law §277(9).  Additionally, the Town of Clarkson had enacted Town Code §254-18B which authorized the Town to withhold the issuance of building permits for 10% of each subdivision until Joy Builders had completed the required infrastructure improvements. The enactment of this law was the Town’s effort to ensure that the required infrastructure work would be completed.

Specifically, Town Code §254-18B stated:  “Ten-percent restriction of building permits pending dedication of improvements in subdivisions.  Building permits shall be restricted, in accordance with the map note per §254-29B of this chapter, to footings, foundations and utilities only on 10% or one of the structures or dwelling units, whichever is greater, in each subdivision until all required improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Control and shall have been dedicated to the town, unless waived by the Planning Board.”

In response to having Town Code §254-18B imposed, Joy Builders brought a declaratory judgement action against the Town seeking a judgment that the Town Code provision was null and void as ultra vires. The Supreme Court denied Joy Builder’s motion for summary judgement on the complaint, and Joy Builders appealed. The Appellate Division reviewed the enabling authority set forth in Town Law §277 and reversed the Supreme Court’s determination.

The Court stated: “[h]ere, a plain reading of Town Law § 277 establishes that (1) it has no express provision authorizing the Lot Holdback Provision set forth in Town Code § 254-18B, (2) pursuant to the rules of statutory construction, the express provisions of Town Law § 277 must be construed to exclude provisions such as those in Town Code § 254-18B which are not contained in § 277 (see Walker v Town of Hempstead, 84 NY2d 360, 367), and (3) it has no provision from which the Lot Holdback Provision of Town Code § 254-18B can be implied (see Matter of Gruber [New York City Dept. Of Personnel—Sweeney], 89 NY2d 225, 234; Matter of Webster Cent. School Dist. v Public Empl. Relations Bd. of State of N.Y., 75 NY2d 619, 627). Thus, Town Code § 254-18B is inconsistent with the plain language of Town Law § 277(9), which expressly sets forth the manner in which a developer can be required to provide financial security to ensure the completion of the installation of required infrastructure and other mandatory improvements.”

Since the matter was a declaratory judgment action, the Court remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court for the entry of a judgment declaring that Town Code §254-18 was null and void as ultra vires and that the conditions imposed on Joy Builders arising out of that Town Code section were also null and void.

 

The Second Department recently reversed a Suffolk County Supreme Court decision granting a use variance for a mother-daughter residence in the Village of Patchogue (the “Village”), in spite of statements made on the record by the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) Chairman implying prior precedent approving such applications.

In June 2014, the petitioner applied to the Village seeking the conversion of her two-car garage into an apartment for her 81 year old mother of limited financial means.  Unfortunately, Patchogue’s zoning code does not define “mother-daughter” or permit an  “accessory apartment” in its single-family residential zone.  As a result, because such use is prohibited, the petitioner was required to appeal that decision to the ZBA for a use variance pursuant to Village Law 7-712-b(2).

At the public hearing before the ZBA, no one opposed the application, and one neighbor spoke in favor of it.  However, as an apparent precursor to denial, the Chairman stated on the record that “[n]ot many [such applications] have been granted at all.”  Not surprisingly, the ZBA denied petitioner’s application to convert her two-car garage into living space.

The petitioner subsequently commenced an Article 78 to annul the ZBA’s decision as arbitrary and capricious.  The Chairman’s statement later became the focal point for petitioner’s argument that prior alleged precedent effectively mandated the ZBA approve petitioner’s garage conversion.

Later that year, the Supreme Court annulled the ZBA’s denial as arbitrary and capricious for failing to follow its own precedent.  See Gray v Village of Patchogue Zoning Board of AppealsIn its decision, the Supreme Court incorrectly implemented the balancing test for an area variance instead of a use variance.  The court appeared to rest its decision heavily on an implied prior precedent based on the Chairman’s above quoted statement.  Based on that statement, the lower court constrained the ZBA to grant the garage conversion, holding that “administrative due process prohibits inconsistent treatment of similarly situated properties”.  Id.

In reversing the Supreme Court’s decision, the Second Department clarified that petitioner’s application was for a use variance.   See Gray v Village of Patchogue Zoning Board of Appeals, 164 AD3d 587 [2d Dept 2018].  The Appellate Division affirmed the ZBA’s denial because the petitioner had failed to satisfy the more onerous “unnecessary hardship” element required for a use variance.   More importantly, the Appellate Division determined that there was no evidence that the ZBA failed to adhere to prior precedent.  Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Board provided a rational explanation for reaching a different result.

Accordingly, this decision should serve as a cautionary tale for applicants and practitioners to not place too much stock on prior approvals by municipal boards.  Although precedent is important, each property is different and may yield a different result.